Social Influence

Question 0

What is conformity?

Answer 0

A change in a persons behaviour or opinions as the result of group pressure

Question 1

What is social influence?

Answer 1

The effect other people have on our behaviour

Question 2

What was Asch’s method and results?

Answer 2

Method- Participants were shown sets of four lines. For each set, the participant had to say whether line A, B or C was the same length as the test line. When tested alone, the participants rarely made a mistake. However, participants also had to give their answers as part of the group. The rest of the group was instructed to give incorrect answers for some of the tests

Results- On 32 per cent of the trails where the rest of the group gave the wrong answer, the participants gave the same wrong answer as the rest other group, rather than the obviously correct answer. In fact 74 per cent of the participant ls gave atleast one wrong answer

Question 3

What is obedience?

Answer 3

Following the orders of someone we believe to have authority

Question 4

What is socialisation?

Answer 4

The way we are raised to behave and the things we are taught to accept as normal

Question 5

What is buffer?

Answer 5

Something that creates distance between the teacher and learner (eg a wall or another person administrating the shocks)

Question 6

What is deindividuation?

Answer 6

The state of loosing our sense of individuality and becoming less aware of our own responsibility for our actions

Question 7

What is anonymous?

Answer 7

Being able to keep our identity hidden

Question 8

What are the factors that affect deindividuation?

Answer 8

• being able to hide our identity
• wearing a uniform
• being part of a gang or clearly identifiable group

Question 9

Describe and evaluate a study into social loafing

Answer 9

Latane et al

Aim- to see whether being in a group had an effect on how much effort participants put into a task

Method- they asked 84 participants to shout and clap as loudly as they could, either alone or in groups of up to 6. Each participant wore headphones so they couldn’t hear anyone else

Results- the larger the group, the less noise the participants made

Conclusion- people put less effort into a task when they know what others are contributing effort to the same task

Evaluation:

• There could be participant variables
• LEV not asked to do it in everyday life
• Subjective measurement
• 1 culture - cannot generalise to the rest of the target population

Question 10

What factors affect social loafing?

Answer 10

• Culture
• Size of the group you are with
• The nature of the task you are performing

Question 11

Describe and evaluate Zimbardo’s study into deindividuation (car- big city and small town)

Answer 11

Aim- to see if people in a big city behave in a more antisocial way than people in a small town

Method- he parked a car in each place with its bonnet up, as if it had broken down and observed what people did when they walked past

Results- people in New York starting stealing parts of the car, within two weeks there was very little left. In Palo Alto the only time it was touched was when someone lowered the bonnet because it was raining

Conclusion- the deindividuation caused by living in a big city leads to an increase in antisocial behaviour

Evaluation:

• not representative-only done in America
• socio-economic status
• helps us to understand higher crime rate in cities
• HEV unaware they were being observed in a natural setting

Question 12

Describe and evaluate Zimbardo’s study into deindividuation (electric shocks)

Answer 12

Aim- to see the effect of hiding identity on size of electric shock

Method- female students reran milgram’s experiment

• half covered face
• half didn’t

Results- when their face was covered the shock was double the amount than when they were in normal clothes with no face covered

Conclusion- being able to conceal identity takes away your responsibility for your actions

Evaluation:

• explains why people cyber-bully
• only tested females, not representative
• artificial environment/ experiment leads to abnormal behaviour
• unethical, psychological harm

Question 13

What factors affect deindividuation?

Answer 13

• being able to hide identity
• wearing a uniform
• being part of a gang or identifiable group

Question 14

What is diffusion of responsibility?

Answer 14

In a group of people there is less need for the individual to act because someone else who is present could also do something

Question 15

Describe and evaluate Latane and Darley’s study into bystander intervention

Answer 15

Aim- to see if people are less likely to react in an emergency when there are others present

Method- they had participants sit in a room either alone or in threes while completing a questionnaire. While the participants were doing this, smoke began to pour into the room

Results- of the participants, 75% of those sitting alone went to tell someone about the smoke within 6 minutes, whereas only 38% of those in groups of three did

Conclusion- if there are other people around you, it will make it less likely that you will react in a emergency

Evaluation:

• LEV, done in a lab
• unethical, physical harm- smoke inhalation

Question 16

Describe and evaluate Piliavin’s study into bystander intervention

Answer 16

Aim- to see if the appearance of the victim would influence helping behaviour

Method- Piliavin had an actor pretend to collapse in a train carriage. His appearance was altered several times and the amount of help he received each time was recorded by an observer

Results- when the actor carried a walking stick he received help 90% of the time. When he had an ugly facial scar he received help 60% of the time and when he appeared to be drunk he received help 20% of the time

Conclusion:

• the actor was male- cannot generalise it with females
• extraneous variables

Question 17

Describe and evaluate Schroeder’s study into bystander intervention

Answer 17

Aim- to explore different reasons for bystanders not helping

Method- they studied the findings and conclusions done many previous pieces of research

Results- they were able to provide an alternative explanation for why bystanders did nothing to help when others were present

Conclusion- bystanders are distressed and concerned about victims but, when other people are present, they believe that someone else might be more capable of helping, or can help more easily than themselves

Evaluation:

• they didn’t actually conduct a study so cannot prove results
• they might interpret the results in more than one way, so reach different conclusions

Question 18

Describe and evaluate Bateson’s study into bystander intervention

Answer 18

Aim- to discover if the similarity of a victim to the bystander will affect whether or not they receive help

Method- participants watched a woman who they thought was receiving electric shocks. Each participant was made to think the woman was either like themselves or not like themselves. They were then given the opportunity to take the woman’s place in order to stop her suffering

Results- more participants were prepared to take the pace of the woman they thought to be similar to themselves than dissimilar

Conclusion- people are more likely to offer help to someone they feel is similar to themselves in some way than to someone that cannot relate to. Bateson claimed it is because we feel greater empathy for people like ourselves, and it causes is more distress to see them suffering. Helping them relieves this distress

Evaluation:

• LEV, wasn’t done in natural setting, wouldn’t be asked to do that in everyday life
• unethical, physical and mental harm
• only tested women